Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

First time accepted submitter Martin Blank writes "Sarah Slocum, an early adopter of Google Glass, was bar hopping with friends in San Francisco when a few people in the bar took issue with the eyewear when she was demonstrating it to another patron even though she wasn't recording. When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording. Two of them approached her, yelling and throwing a bar rag at her, and ultimately ripping the Glass from her face and running from the bar with it. She gave chase and eventually got the Glass back, but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar. This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works. Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"

Except that I do understand how it works, and definitely do not like the idea of having that kind of product around. But yeah, I must be buying into fear and hype because there's no other reason for people to not like the idea of having a fairly concealed recording device that may or may not be recording.

So if I walk into a bar and take my cell phone out of my pocket to show a friendl I should expect people to object? She was not in thier face according to the article, she was showing people how it works.

Looking at a cell phone is not offensive.Obviously showing the screen to a friend is not offensive.

Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you would be offensive whether or not you were filming.

Glass is the equivalent of walking around holding your cell phone up in filming position... all the time. You may not be recording but nothing stops you from quickly flipping into recording mode or taking pictures.

These people are trying to relax. Some of them may be having affairs while they "work late at the office".

Some of them may be criminal types, meeting in the bar for business.

And you are walking around holding a camera up, ready to start taking pictures of them at any instant.

Cell phones these days are cameras. Looking it one is like looking in a camera's viewfinder. If you claim it's not offensive, I'm fine with that, but then using google glass is not offensive either.

Looking at your cellphone != Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you. When you look at your phone, where is the lens pointed? Answer: somewhere on the ground, not too far away from your feet. You only hold it vertically up near eye level when you are using the camera.

On a related note: how do you feel about people wearing Glass type devices in places that forbid recording (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc)?

You're telling me for realsies that you hold your phone at a 90 degree angle right in front of your face? Cuz most people hold their phones like they're holding a book. This would point the. Camera at peoples feet. I say it again, your either lying or your holding it wrong.

I never meant to imply that it was OK for somebody to object, just that it shouldn't come as a shock if some people do. This is new enough that people who are vaguely familiar with it are uncomfortable. And pulling out your cell phone to make a call looks pretty innocuous to a bystander. Wearing Google Glass and facing a person could be interpreted (for better or worse) like taking out your cell phone/camera and aiming it at somebody. Probably innocent, not illegal, but possibly awkward.

Imagine chatting with somebody about sports/weather/whatever when you notice a mic sticking out of the top of their shirt. "Wait, are you wearing a wire???" "Yeah, but it's off and I wear it all the time because it comes in handy and I think it's neat." It's OK, but a little weird. Google Glass is even beyond that - Instead of just a wire, it's like having a shoulder-mounted camera pointed at you. Still "fine", but even weirder.

Man, you must be a lot of joy to have around if you beat up everyone who dares to take out their cellphone with you around. Protip: it's way too late to be upset about cameras. Grow a pair. Cameras are everywhere.

Yes, I'm sure the guys at the bar were taking a principled stand here.

"Listen *hic* lady... you need to *hic* read sche... shnedr... schnieder on security. Or is it *hic* Krebbs? Listen, here's the thing *hic* when I go out in public *hic* I don't expect anonymimitiy through obscurity... I mean security... but your wearable glasses camera makes it easeir for *hic* yahoo... NO (slaps self) stupid! I mean Google and the NSA to invade my privacy. Look *hic* at CCCTVs in england. Yeah. That's it. (barfs)"

Google has a great feature where it automagically gets uploaded to your G+ account. Of course, this has to be turned on, and you have to have fast enough internet available to get it on the web in the last few seconds of operation, but in a city like San Francisco, I'd be surprised if this didn't work.

A $3.99 balaclava from the Dollar Store can easily take care of any identifying info. Of course, if push comes to shove (literally), a good attacker will just shove the victim's face in the wall, so the glasses get a good view of the bricks, then the concrete...

This isn't something completely new... it is just blowback from being recorded 24/7, and now people want to wear headcams to add more insult to injury. I wouldn't be surprised to see more incidents of this happening, be it reactionary protests, or just to snarf something worth $1500... and $1500 buys a lot of meth in most of the US.

[185.] Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating

There is an expectation of obscurity in public, which while not a legal expectation has served as a substitute for the legal expectation of privacy. That's ending now as cameras (and the data they upload) become ubiquitous.

Out in the open in a public place, such as a sidewalk, bar, or a grocery store - there isn't an expectation of privacy.

Bars and grocery stores are private places. You can be asked to leave for any reason which is not on your local, state, or federal list of protected reasons. For example, in California you can't tell someone to leave because they're gaying up the place, because sexual orientation is a protected attribute in California. But you can tell them to leave because they're causing you some sort of problem. A court decides whether you were justified.

A bar is not a public place. It is not owned by the state. If the proprietor wants to record everyone coming in they have to post a notice. There is an expectation of a certain level of privacy which does not include being recorded.

Now, malls are public places. But a bar is not. And a bar in a mall is not.

Personally, I'm going to take a fair bit of delight once Glass or it's successor is built into prescription frames & lenses, some Luddite ogre of a bar manager kicks someone wearing them out, and the patron's vision turns out to have been bad enough to bring the ADA into play.

Maybe after that happens a few times, the anti-technology brigade will get the clue that "nerds get out" just doesn't fly anymore.

Wearing a short skirt isn't an invasion of other people's privacy. Pointing a camera at them is. If people make it clear they don't want a recording device pointing at them, and you persist, then you do indeed bear some responsibility if it results in a bad outcome for you.

Yea, nobody's ever taken a photo or a video in a bar before with a phone.

Sure they have. And sometimes they get attacked. Happens all the time. But since it is not google glass, it doesn't make it to slashdot. People don't like to be recorded without their permission. It doesn't matter if it is google glass. This article attempts to make it sound like google glass users are a group that is discriminated against. That is not the case.

We've got one example of some dickheads and that's grounds to claim it isn't generally accepted? If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.

Very much agree! Regardless of the actual acceptance levels, one incident is statistically insignificant. If you replaced the gadget in this case with a hand-held camcorder, would you suggest that camcorders are not generally accepted? Or maybe just recording devices in general are not accepted in this context.

Also I would say that the number of Google Glass related violent incidents is over-reported compared to other tech-gadget related incidents, since this is only news because it involves Glass.

If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.

For a device that's still not generally available; only available in developer quantities at a high price? I don't think so.

A number of us here have pointed out that people wearing Google Glass are so annoying to people around them that they risk being punched. A warning that's been repeated by Google fans as if it's a threat. But it was no threat, just a prediction. And here we see one early example of that prediction more or less coming true.

A red LED that glows when the 'glasses' are actually recording and is dark when they aren't.

Which is easily disabled. Even laptop camera lights that claimed to be "hardware inline" has been showed to have exploits that malware can use to disable the light while recording (they won't really be as "inline" as you think because of noise issues with that, and the fact that many cameras these days double as light sensors, so they are always on). If you are the owner it is even easier, you can cover up the light, or disconnect a wire.

true there will always be uber-glassholes that will go out of their way to violate people's privacy, but if there were a red light at all at least Goog would be acknowledging the problem instead of validating all the glass holes.

Seriously. We're already living in a panopticon society, being recorded by the government and private business almost 24x7.Now we have a bunch of people OPENLY wearing cameras on their heads, recording our every moment in public too, whether we want it or not.I can understand a certain modicum of hostility. Granted, nobody should EVER be PHYSICALLY attacked. But the people behind Google Glass, as well as the users of the product need to understand that this product is going to be pushing people's buttons.

I guess if you're in a bar, you can tell the owner/manager to get rid of the person with the camera. If they don't then you can just leave. The owner/manager of the bar can make their decision if it's more in their business interests to allow of disallow Google Glass. There's almost always better solutions than violence.

Sure, but this was in a bar. Where people tend to be drunk. You can easily get beaten up in a bar for simply looking at someone for what they believe is too long, or in a funny way. If you look with Google Glass on your face the likelihood of exception being taken and fists flying is of course magnified.

I guess if you're in a bar, you can tell the owner/manager to get rid of the person with the camera. If they don't then you can just leave. The owner/manager of the bar can make their decision if it's more in their business interests to allow of disallow Google Glass. There's almost always better solutions than violence.

It may have ostensibly been about privacy, but clearly it was also about resentment towards tech-industry aristos displacing everyone else,with their private busses and their artisanal vodkas and fancy gadgets and most of all their ability to pay obscene rents and stay in The Cityrather than commuting in from Gilroy.

My step-son owns Google Glass and he went with us on a cruise recently. All the reactions I saw were very positive. He allowed other to wear it and demonstrated how it worked to anyone who was interested. If anything, it added to his popularity.

More and more I am agreeing. I do not have a use for such devices, but if I did, I would probably get one in part because my respect for the detractors and their arguments has been rapidly going down. They talk about pretentious and douchyness, but they seem to exhibit far more of it then the 'glass holes'.

People don't like being recorded, or even the possibility of being recorded, without their express permission. That's not going to change, therefore there isn't going to be any "general acceptance" of technology like this.

People don't like being recorded, or even the possibility of being recorded, without their express permission. That's not going to change, therefore there isn't going to be any "general acceptance" of technology like this.

Seems people don't like being recorded by individuals they can actually see in the flesh, and just accept the recording of themselves by whoever mounts a camera on the ceiling or wall anywhere. And I don't think it's just the tacit acceptance of being monitored and recorded as a condition of darkening someone's door: I suspect that the average person would be far more uncomfortable with a mall cop pointing a camera at them in person vs. monitoring them from a back office with an array of pannable cameras as they moved about the premises. Even though the net result is the same, it's the apparent human element that I suspect makes Average Joe uncomfortable.

Not really. An automated CCTV system is accepted because we know why it's there. It's for liability reasons. It's to protect the businesses/properties in question. Most of us know that these images will never even be seen by a real person let alone posted to YouTube or worse.

Normal people start wondering what's going on when someone randomly starts taking pictures of them. It raises alarm in a lot of people. The alcohol that was likely involved in this incident probably didn't help matters either.

Would you be 100% comfortable with someone recording you for no obvious reason in public? If so, you're probably the exception. And I'm not saying this as justification for what happened but as a reason why GG and things of that nature are going to get a lot of resistance. Try pulling out your phone in a bar and hold it up like you're recording, you'll notice that people will shy away from you or maybe even worse.

While I would prefer to see a red led indicating that it is actively recording, that's not the only issue.

The early adopters are also actively running around flaunting that they had an extra $1,500 just lying around. It is also similar to the hostility growing about the elite companies busing their employees. There is a level of elitism that is being flaunted about by these people and that doesn't sit well with many people. Especially with a growing divide of haves and have nots.

In this case it seems that since they eventually just grabbed the device, that all of the bluster was probably just show to get them in a position to steal it.

Google glass is up front and personal. Eye level, quality video and audio. That is far different than an overhead security cam, even the best ones. The reaction is the same as if a person was recording with a hand held video camera in a bar. How well do you think that would be tolerated, especially if it was not directed at an immediate group of friends and short lived? How would you feel sitting in that bar with the other patron aimlessly recording for 30, 60 or more minutes? Would you be surprised if someone got up and knocked the camera out of their hand? Verbally berated them? Pushed them?

"How well do you think that would be tolerated, especially if it was not directed at an immediate group of friends and short lived? "happens every day all over the place. Just with Cell phones. Many of which you can't tell are recording."Would you be surprised if someone got up and knocked the camera out of their hand? Verbally berated them? Pushed them?"Yes I would. Most people are civilized enough to go to the manager/bar tender and ask them to have the person turn off the camera or that they are leaving.

The real issue here is what's actually going on in SF. If you don't live here you probably don't know, but there has been a lot of soft aggression against tech workers regardless of the company all over the city, simply because more and more are moving in, driving up the prices of housing and attracting more higher-end businesses, effectively changing the nature of traditionally "working class" neighborhoods. Classic gentrification.

This bar in particular is more of a punk-type place, located exactly in one of those areas under rapid changing, so the presence of someone with GG was probably an in-your-face reminder (no pun intended) of the situation many of the locals are experiencing.

I can personally understand both sides, but I tend to side with history: everything changes over time and different forces will produce different changes. You can fight it only to a certain degree, but change is inexorable, and you can't forever cling to "the way things were before".

Slocum said she was bar hopping with friends when they ended up at the bar in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. She was showing one curious bar patron Google Glass when two women started shielding their faces and rolling their eyes, she said. One of the women made an obscene gesture, Slocum said.Feeling threatened, she said she told them she was going to record with Google Glass.

That’s when she said one of the women and a man “charged” her, telling her they did not want to be filmed.

She could have walked away, but instead she chose to up the ante by threatening the patrons with recording their objections to being filmed.

Slocum said the woman then ran up to her, saying “you are killing the city” and tried to grab Google Glass from her. Then the man “ripped them off my face and ran out of the bar,” Slocum said.

Now that is interesting as it may be indicative of a general anti-Google aspect in the city as much as an anti-glass thing.

I wouldn't be aggressive, but I also think it's unacceptable that people film me constantly when I'm trying to relax. Especially in bars and similar places where I have high expectations of being away from the scrutiny of everyone but the people I've chosen to socialise with.

Pointing cameras at people (and optionally saying "I swear it's not recording"), in the form of phones or Glass or whatever, is simply a really anti-social thing to do.

So is aggression and theft, but one wrong doesn't mean we should turn the other person into a white knight as this article tries to do.

Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

Your question is nonsensical: Those people would likely be even more furious if they knew your clothes were covered in pinhole spy cameras.

The problem is people don't like having creepy strangers record them in public, regardless of whether they have the "right" to do so or not. The issue is the human discomfort and you might get to a point where people won't just kick your ass for looking at them while wearing Google Glass (or similar invasive, idiotic, and useless products) but you'll never in our lifetime get people "comfortable" with some creepy asshole filming them out in public. Nor will you ever get them comfortable with the perception that they're being recorded.

I wonder what the over/under on somebody hacking Google Glass to disable the "recording" light is--assuming such a hack doesn't exist already in the wild and we just haven't heard about it.

Major changes in society, that won't be happening anytime soon. Look, we're already monitored basically 24/7. We don't like it, but if we squint our eyes and look the other way, we can pretend we aren't. The Google Glass thing is just shoving it in our faces and not allowing us to ignore it. (The reasonably common perception of Glass wearers as pretentious hipsters doesn't help).

I think it's far more likely that places like bars (where we want to relax and do foolish things) will ADVERTISE that they don't allow these devices, and don't record internally. Glass may be the straw that triggers the backlash.

People turn quite irrational at the prospect of being photographed or filmed. I've run into problems overseas, but I almost think it's worse in the US. People seem to take issue with the mere presence of a camera. If you're shooting buildings that are not established landmarks you get odd looks. And I got approached once because I was taking photos of car taillights for a project. They were still suspicious after showing them my shots. The only time you're really not going to have a problem is when you're with friends and your camera is clearly pointed at them.

Google Glass, however, takes this perceived threat to a whole other level because you've got a camera stuck to your head and in the minds of the ignorant you're recording everything you see.

Of course, we don't really know the nature of the incident; if this woman was antagonistic herself, if the other party were resentful of someone flaunting wealth, if theft was the motive, or if they really were just plain stupid. Either way, bars and such tend to attract imbeciles which is why I would never wear something like Google Glass out at night. At least not until the technology became ubiquitous and accepted.

Of course, we don't really know the nature of the incident; if this woman was antagonistic herself...

If you read the original article, a couple of women nearby rolled their eyes and covered their faces, clearly not wanting to be recorded. She said she felt "threatened" by this, and specifically TOLD them she would now be recording them. Sounds pretty antagonistic to me.

Remember the douchebags that leave their bluetooth headphone thing in their ear all day long, ostensibly because it's more convenient, but more of a status declaration (because frankly, how much "work" is it to either lift up your cell phone when it rings, or put in the earpiece when it rings?) to all around them?

Yeah, Google Glass is like that, to the exponential power of "look how much more $ I have than you".

Personally, no, I don't believe I need to simply "accept" that someone's desperate need to stay connected to the interwebs" is so significant that he/she can't take the bloody thing off in a social situation.

If someone were to stand there filming me, I might object as well. If they were to start doing it without asking, I might firmly object.

Here's my tip, if you're going to assault someone with Google Glasses on, make sure you a) assault them from behind, preferably either with something over their head, or at least knock the glasses off, b) step on the glasses ASAP.

I'm not saying anyone should hurt anyone (I expect you'll get caught, anyway) but I'm reaching the point where ostentatious disregard for other people should treated with cavalier disregard for their social contract in turn.

Where I need to worry that any moment of my life can appear on online without my permission.

Where I need to worry someone has turned on and off their recording at opportune times of that moment that appeared on online to make me look bad without giving full context of the situation.

Where I need to pay money to remove said videos from the Internet.

Where I cannot walk down the street, eat at a restaurant, workout at a gym, or celebrate at a bar without worrying someone is recording to be uploaded and judged harshly by tens of thousands if not millions of people.

I doubt anyone else wants to live in that world either, but every time someone resigns themselves to allowing it that world arrives that much sooner.

For me? A reasonable belief that the recording will not become part of a centralized surveillance database of sightings of me and my fellow citizens that can be datamined decades from now. The same thing I want for ATM cameras, license plate scanners, and all the other increaslingly pervasive permanent, personally identifiable record systems. Reasonable expectation of privacy isn't just about whether I am concealed from perception, it is also about the reasonable belief that where I have been and what I've been doing will generally be forgotten if I'm not famous and it isn't criminal behavior or otherwise significantly offensive.

In short, I will become accepting when I believe the device shows the same degree of civil discretion and temporal fade that I would expect from a random stranger who sees me walk out of a strip club or hydroponics store (neither of which are my personal pecadillo, but the best I could come up with). I do not have that belief currently about Google Glass. It's the same motive that causes me to limit my use of Facebook (six logins of less than fifteen minutes each last year -- I counted). Problem with Google Glass is I can't choose when you are going to sacrifice my privacy to your corporate overlord's time- and GPS- stamped photo surveillance database.

Someone in England covered a speed trap camera with a burlap bag, set it on fire, and police are saying it was likely on purpose (lol). A LOT of people in England walk around with their face obscured by a handkerchief to protest CC TV camera. A ton of those cameras have been vandalized or destroyed.
So back in Freedom Land aka the US, you walk into a bar with a head mounted video device and OMG SHOCKING someone takes issue with it. Wow, no precedent for that! Except for...all the precedent.

Personally I feel that people who will physically assault a person for being part of a group they are not are much bigger pretentious assholes then someone who is minding their own business with their friends.

I find the detractors far more pretentious then the people who have google glass.

Yes, just that! Those idiots have actually taken the attention away from the real issue here which is a potential for loss of privacy with devices like Google Glass!
Now the problem has been re-defined to safety of those wearing Google Glass.

Of course not, cell phones are on the 'right' side of a cultural divide and thus are 'fine'.

While people complain about the recording or the perceived pretentiousness of the owners, it is really just a mini culture war with people falling over themselves to demonstrate their own authenticity by not being one of 'those' people. It is kinda like people who go on forums to proclaim loudly how horrible social media is and how we all need to go make real friends like THEY do. They want more people in their pa

With glass, you cannot easily detect whether the glasshole is recording or not. With a phone, it takes a certain stance to record anything useful and hence it is easy to see. Try recording videos with a phone some time and see how people get upset...

Ah ha... so if I'm out at a bar, and somebody has their smartphone out and is say, checking their email, then I can object and have reasonable expectation that they put the smartphone away in their pocket or leave the bar?

It reminds my of an acquaintance of mine who wrote about his glass experience, saying that he was out at a street festival and was confronted by a street performer who was worried he was recording the show. The response was 'no, I'm not, but there are three or four other people around here with smartphones who are' and he pointed them out.

Obviously, seeing people wearing Google glass the first few times can be off putting (presumably), but I've heard people say more than once that they were pretending to do something on their phone but were actually taking video.

I think it's too late really to do much about this - people already have easy access to video cameras that are commonly carried around in public and give little to no indication that they are recording. The glass is just one more way to do it.

If the person was "checking their email" in such a way that always pointed the camera in your direction... yes. How do you know they are not recording? If they cant manage to aim the thing in a direction that does not offend anybody, they should put the thing away.

The fact that you kind of have to have the camera pointed at people constantly, regardless if it is recording or not, is the whole problem with Glass.

Ah ha... so if I'm out at a bar, and somebody has their smartphone out and is say, checking their email, then I can object and have reasonable expectation that they put the smartphone away in their pocket or leave the bar?

You're being deliberately stupid in order to make a very dumb point. People using their smartphones rarely hold it at an angle that would put people's faces in frame unless they're taking a picture (or video).

And if I somehow new that a particular pen being worn was one of those, I'd probably get pretty angry about it as well. I keep seeing this basic argument come up here, and it's kind of amazing how everyone keeps missing the point. Glass is NOT a spy device. It's not designed to be. It's not marketed as one. It's just supposed to be some cool new tech toy that also happens to record video. Someone wearing Glass isn't trying to disguise it or anything.

Sadly, the law in most areas says no expectation of privacy in public places which includes at a bar. Most bars have security cameras in them anyway and the management has full access to strategically-placed video feeds.

But the expectation is that bar management won't go posting video of tipsy patrons behaving comically on web sites for all the world to see.

I think people running around with video cameras on their heads that may or may not be filming everyone else is just going too far.

"There is no tiny red LED light flashing when Glass is in recording mode. However, the Glass display is on when recording, and people in close proximity on the other side of the lens can see the tiny reverse image of what's on the display. But the act of recording video or picture taking may not be that obvious from a distance or to the uninitiated. It's clearly less obvious than someone pointing a phone in your direction."

That you have to try to explain all that reveals the problem. Anyone reading your original comment would take "light" to mean little red LED - not the light in the viewfinder of a reverse image that also would be tiny and not especially visible.

When the Google Glass is on and displaying something to the wearer, there will also be a "light" in the eyepiece. How is someone to know without getting in your face and eavesdropping on what you are doing? See the issue? Someone has to get in your face to tell if you are surreptitiously recording them or not.

It is a recipe for fights and altercations. Google Glass wearers should understand that just wearing them is going to piss some people off in quite a few situations. Add alcohol to the mix and they ought to be prepared for whatever happens.

Someone pointing a phone at someone is at least a bit more obvious and if you do it to the wrong person the same thing is going to happen. It's easy to understand why people would react this way for most people. Apparently not for "glassholes", though.

Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.